Talk: Apollo spacecraft

I would support keeping this a separate article if there was additional information aside from "it was depicted on a schematic" (to paraphrase) but I propose a merge a la what we did with maps seen in the shows. 31dot (talk) 19:00, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ditto with the other articles I have linked to this discussion from. 31dot (talk) 19:02, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all those merge suggestions. --Cid Highwind (talk) 19:56, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Please wait on these merges until the results of the discussion here. In fact, people keep ignoring that discussion and going ahead with a) article creation, b) delete suggestions, and c) merge suggestions. -- sulfur (talk) 21:10, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but without more people joining that discussion to eventually bring it to some sensible end, it will just go on forever and stall everything else. With two people favoring merges, two people opposing merges, and one somewhere in the middle, this just looks like a deadlock to me until further people shift the balance one way or the other. In that light, trying to just moderate is an honorable but probably futile thing to do. :-) --Cid Highwind (talk) 21:47, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, and considering the notability of these articles, I am in favor of merger.Throwback (talk) 02:04, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

How is ignoring the discussion better, Cid? The least you could do is allow the discussion to run out of steam before declaring it a failure. What's happening here is less disruptive than the unilateral nominations for deletion earlier, but just as improper. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:17, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is not to be taken as a vote against a merge, but I don't see how any conclusions of the cities deletion discussion have any relevance here. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:22, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

The many articles on cities and other geographical features that were only seen on a map in "The Cage" (and whose articles consisted of "X was on the map" and nothing else) were merged on the grounds that was not enough to have an article. I submit this is a similar situation; these articles were only seen on a map (schematic) and consist of "X was on a schematic" and nothing else. 31dot (talk) 08:09, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Capricorn, just stop it with the false accusations, please! I'm obviously not "ignoring some discussion", I'm one of the few people who is still participating in it. However, if one person thinks he can just run around, merrily creating more questionable (according to that discussion) articles despite the fact that we are currently having a discussion about those, and a second person (correctly, in my opinion) doesn't want to leave that unanswered, I will add my support to that. The key to not spreading this discussion to a bazillion other talk pages is to not create more articles while that main discussion is ongoing. Not much is lost by waiting for that discussion to end first.

Back to topic, I agree that this is very much like that past "cities on a map" situation, and should be handled similarly. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:03, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the similarity between the articles I created for the spaceship components and those I created for buildings and cars, just to name two examples. The former was named in the canon, whereas the other was not. Now, because I didn't know of the Quarters page, I created a new page titled, "Officers' Quarters". This page will have to be merged.Throwback (talk) 12:32, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that a merry discussion is actually going on here, while there are complaints that the original discussion is grinding to a halt. You two (Cid and 31dot) seem happy to still discuss the issue here while not having bothered to comment on the other page today. This is the second time this happened and there were already complaints the first time. If you think this is justified then the very least you could have done is say so on the other page, otherwise it looks like you were just hoping to create an echo chamber for your view of what our consensus ought to be. And in any case if one feels that someone is disruptive and acting out of term, countering it by doing the same thing is not the way to go!

Oh well. I think the cities discussion is dramatically different in that most votes for deletion were centered on the implications of those names not being readable. You're reading it as if it were a precedent for deleting everything ever found in an okudagram. Also, if you guys think that ought to be precedent, why bring this page up for merge and not outright deletion?

@Throwback; you're still doing the same thing that has been causing trouble in the beginning: making your own conclusions and running with them. It's doubly annoying since you never explain them, you just post "oh well now I believe x" and go on to make all kinds of changes. Because something makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone. Your current sudden beliefs that stuff should be merged in a page called "Officers' Quarters" isn't the worst thing you've so far, but it's still an example of that same kind of behavior. You've got to stop stop that. If it helps, try working on something completely different for now (ie not creating new pages or work on minor references) -- Capricorn (talk) 19:06, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that two people agreeing on something and two others telling the first two that they shouldn't be talking about the validity of a page on its talk page (which is one of the listed purposes of talk pages) is a "merry discussion". But it doesn't matter to me what this is called. As Cid said, there is no reason to just ignore what else goes on here while a more general discussion is underway. I was more just marking these pages for future references once a consensus is reached on the general issue. 31dot (talk) 19:46, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

A better way to not ignore what was happening might have been to direct users to the existing discussion rather then this talk page. (similar to how the proliferating deletion discussions were ultimately handled). Regardless of what talk pages are for, it's no good discussing single merges when we're still discussing what policy should be elsewhere. Sorry for the "merry discussion" comment though, that was just frustration coming through and that post could really have done without that. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:46, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

The other discussion seems to have run it's course, so time to vote: I'm opposed. This stuff was specifically labeled seen, and individual spacecraft components have always gotten articles when came to starships, so I don't see why this would be different. On a more general note, and I've said this before, but I just don't think the cage cities map precedent has relevance here. It talked about completely illegible labels, and the deletion rather then merging of them. It centered on the question if we ought to include "guessed" information at all, not where to put information actually decipherably seen. And even then the consensus was hardly the clearest ever, with just one explicit delete vote and some suggesting the articles might be recreated again later. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:46, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

So that would mean each room on the Enterprise and each starship seen should get an article, as room labels were 'specifically labeled seen'. Not everything that gets seen gets its own article. 31dot (talk) 08:29, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I think what we need to take away from that other discussion is the fact that most people don't care about a too precise, clear-cut decision of what exactly makes an object "article-worthy", and the few people who participated couldn't agree on any criteria. This includes the "seen on a label"-criterion. Of course, if the name of some object was seen somewhere, that can be a first indication of a potential article - but, in my opinion, it can only be one of several factors that need to be weighed against each other, not the single point used to determine this. Here, we do have a visible name, but we also have the fact that it was visible for only a short time, the fact that it (or the object itself) was not used as a story detail (but just background "filler"), the fact that, apart of it being named we can't say much else about the object and, perhaps most importantly, the fact that all of these are just parts of a bigger whole about which we already have an article. In at least one case, the article we have already is made up of a "list of parts" so to speak, so merging further parts to that article wouldn't be something that has never been done before, but would actually follow that precedent.

Again, I'm not basing my opinion on any single of these factors, but on their combination (and there may still be more than those I just listed). In this case, it means that I still favor a merge. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:33, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Other, similar articles that contain a merge suggestion but do not yet link to these discussion are: Horizon scanner, Gas tank and cover and High resolution camera. I will add a link to this discussion to their talk page to make those suggestion a part of this starting now. If you don't want to extend your earlier comment here to these pages as well, please state that here.

I for one don't have a problem with adding those articles (surprised to see that solar panels were only ever named on such graphics, though). With one exception; I think TV camera ought to be merged into Camera regardless of of the merits of merging the other articles, on account of those two things being the same thing. Furthermore, you can add stuff like Kyoto or West Virginia or Vernal Galaxy or Jonathan Frakes Raymond too for all I care if you feel like having those all in the same discussion. The reasoning seems exactly the same so that's not really a problem.

But if you still want to talk about each room on the Enterprise getting it's own article, then wait until such an article is made, bring it up for merger, and then see what happens. No matter how many times you'll bring that up, Enterprise rooms and spacecraft parts are different in all kinds of ways, and what we do with one should not inform what we do with the other without some kind of clear reasoning. You've asked for reasons, we've tried to discuss that, and discussion failed. All that is left now is to discuss specific things, or at least groups of things that have the exact same justification for existing or not existing. Pretending that we all agree that there are specific reasons why the rooms aren't separate articles and that these also apply on spaceship parts is out.

Moving on from the discussion for a moment, Cid, I don't think the lesson from the previous discussion should be that people don't care at all. Rather then people not being able to agree, it was you specifically not agreeing to anything others proposed, based on standards for perfection that could not in the least bit be applied to your own arguments. (you're talking about things being part of a whole here, while previously rejecting any attempt to establish what that even means as futile). And by dismissing everyone that disagrees with you, and just starting over elsewhere when things don't go your way, you can either win every argument or at least prevent the other side from a clear win so your position isn't defeated. Cid, seeing you bring up the same stuff again here after you stopped participating in the other discussion rather then addressing concerns with your own position, I have no choice but to conclude that you must intentionally be trying to game the system. (yes, I know that that is a serious allegation). You criticize every opposing argument as not fitting into some hypothetical perfect policy, whereas you bring up only nebulous arguments for mergers, based not on any policy but on your feelings on how things ought to be and ignore any criticisms of that. (I'm not even going to go into the fact that since you are on the side advocating for a change from established practice, I have more right to ask you to outline limits then you have of demanding them from me). You keep saying what ought to be merged is obvious and needs no exact clarification, but several people have said that your reasoning was not clear enough for them (this is even appart from flat-out disagreement), and you have ignored them, and continued to ignore them, which can only be read as a refusal to cooperate and a willful setting aside of anything you don't like the sound of, so you can continue to do just what you want regardless.

(@31dot, to be perfectly clear, I'm only talking about Cid here, not you too. You may hold the same position which I really don't agree with, but this is about tactics, not positions) -- Capricorn (talk) 12:54, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Good lord, Capricorn, unless you want to derail another discussion, please stop bringing up stuff that doesn't belong. Feel free to copy any or all of that to my talk page if you want an answer, but you won't be getting one here. This is about the merging of spacecraft parts and nothing else. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 13:40, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Again, I believe you are gaming the system, and that you are (mainly) the one derailing the pages. When one feels a particular discussion isn't being conducted properly, where else is one to bring that up? And by the way, I did contribute a bunch of on-topic opinion too, including in my last post. I have to admit you've done remarkably well on not taking these complaints or unfortunate wording or that kind of stuff as excuses not to comment on specific points recently, but now you've just started doing it again. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:15, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

It has been suggested that High resolution camera be merged to camera instead by sulfur. Since we're talking more about a list in case of items being merged to their originally suggested target, I think both can be done at the same time (merge to either page for history keeping purposes, but mention on both pages). This idea is also compatible with the fact that additions to existing articles (like Battery, where the term has been used in several different circumstances, not just as a small label) haven't been considered controversial so far. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 15:41, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Well, with that at least I agree completely :)-- Capricorn (talk) 16:18, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

I will second what Cid said in that merely being seen on screen is not enough for an article, and that other factors play into it, such as the ones he stated. For example, if Aft equipment bay was seen in more than one episode, I would feel more comfortable about it being a separate article; or if there was more information about it such as technical information, or if it was a plot point, etc. etc. This was none of those things; it was just to plug a background scene. 31dot (talk) 18:52, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

All done except for control section and solar panel, which haven't been part of the original suggestion. Just to be on the safe side, I'm going to wait for another week in these cases, and will then merge control section but momentarily keep solar panel, because the latter one has info from more than one satellite and might still be extended with even more information from other vehicles. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:20, November 21, 2013 (UTC)